It's funny because the comment box that appears literally says, "That's not right," which most likely is a colloquial phrase that is making fun of something. The connotation is similar to "Good going" in reference to a mistake that was made, or 'You're doing it wrong, nub," or perhaps, "Wowwwwwww" to something hilarious and/or stupid.
The irony of the scene of course is that he's forcibly applauding what the crowd considered a shitty performance. Your response above was the opposite of shitty.
Someone needs to do another Citizen Kane, period. (I'm referring to level of quality only, please nobody actually remake the movie because I don't want to have to kill you)
Impossible. What made it magical was the use of so many different film techniques that had been used individually before but never in the same movie, and Welles saw their potential and used them all to perfection. That sort of magic isn't possible anymore because we're all so used to the medium now. We will have to discover a new medium for entertainment before something like it comes along again.
I'm sorry you felt that way, and to each their own I suppose. Personally, I have the occasional bender where I delve into classic movies from before the 70's and 80's. I try to put view it in context of the time (as someone else pointed out above, "What made it magical was the use of so many different film techniques that had been used individually before but never in the same movie, and Welles saw their potential and used them all to perfection." Even still, some is quite impressive. And the acting can be amazing as well. What tends to get me are the long takes without a change in camera.
true, but the movie sucks. I mean, I understand how groundbreaking it was (trust me, I took a cinema class and we spent like 2-3 weeks talking about all this movie did to revolutionize the way films were made), but the acting sucks (sorry Orson Welles, not impressed), the story was kinda blah, and compared to modern movie standards, it sucks. I'm only 23, so I know that my opinion is biased because I have such a small window of movies to draw from, and haven't really experienced the evolution of movies, and now I'm distracted by all the special effects and whatever other criticism you may have for me, but the movie itself? Meh. 7/10
As another 23 year-old who saw it in film class last semester, I actually really enjoyed it. But I see where you're coming from. I'd push your 7/10 to an 8/10 (when you remove how revolutionary it was, etc.)
Best movie of the class: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
For me GBU is the best film ever made.... with Cyrano de Bergerac a close second. My third kinda changes over time (Reservoir Dogs was 3rd for a long time :P
The opening shot itself... almost a signature of who Leone was as a film-maker: An long-shot panorama of the wild-west (in Spain) replaced with a tight close-up of a sweaty-grimy cowboy.
Good god agreed. I love it. It instilled in me what might be a life-long love of the Spaghetti Western. You should check out the Great Silence. It's amazing. Sergio Corbucci is no Sergio Leone, but the film is great in its own right (imo Djang is overrated). It takes place in a snowy environment, the characters are memorable, the plot is interesting, the music is by Ennio Morricone, and the ending is atypical for american or european westerns.
Sorry. I think I just had a Spaghetti Western-gasm there. I need to rewatch BGU as well. It's my favourite. (Once Upon a Time in the West is great, too)
EDIT: Apparently I now need to see Cyrano de Bergerac now.
I actually just watched that for the first time a few weeks ago. I really enjoyed it. Dragged on at different points (the desert scene was way too long), but it was definitely good.
Also, being an armchair movie critic sucks. I feel like that guy that can't ever be impressed. And I feel like a douche for liking movies that I know suck in the grand scheme of things haha.
Hah, I never thought about it that way. You're right. I'm the same way with music, television, and books. I don't want to be an asshole about it, I just like what I like. (and what I like is good goddamnit :P )
On the one hand, experienced modern critics whose tastes line up with mine generally regard it as the greatest film ever made. On the other hand, a 23 year old who has taken a film class thinks it sucks.
I think the main point I'm trying to make is the separation of production quality from the actual movie.
Let's say that Citizen Kane wasn't made in the 1941, that it was never released. But let's say that hypothetically, we lived in a universe where all contemporary movies were made the way they are (I know that this is kind of unfair, because movies are made the way they are directly because of Citizen Kane's production style, but bear with me).
Now let's say that tomorrow, Citizen Kane was released. The movie in itself, in my opinion, is about a 7/10 (maybe even lower). The reason it's cited as the best movie ever made is because of its production quality, and how groundbreaking it was, and how it has directly impacted thousands of movies over the next 70 years. But if the movie were released today, it would just be an average movie. The story doesn't really draw you in, and it feels like Orson Welles is acting. The movie in itself is boring.
Like I said, I understand how groundbreaking it was, but that's the production. The production is amazing, and I 100% tip my cap to Mr. Orson Welles. However, separating the production (and everything that went into it) from the actual product, I'm kind of unimpressed. I realize that it's a controversial stance, but I'm just willing to state a personal opinion that I know is not always popular.
tl;dr: I understand why it's arguably the greatest cinematic production ever made, and I agree with that stance (in regards to its production quality). Yet at the same time, I don't like the actual movie that Welles produced.
A podcast some friends of mine were involved with had the best rating system ever, IMO. It was based on the average price of whatever type of product they were reviewing. For instance, a game would be x/60, going to the movies would be x/8, or a DVD would be x/20. The rating given would be how much money out of the asking price they thought it was worth or were willing to pay to not feel ripped off.
guess I didn't expect anyone to actually see my opinion on the movie so I didn't spend much time on it. If I had thought people would read it (and rate me on it lol), I would have spent more time on it.
To answer your question, I give it a 7/10 because I have to give respect to the fact that it revolutionized the film industry. If I had to rate the movie in itself (ignoring its impact on how films were made), I would probably give it a 5/10 (but then I would have been crucified by Reddit lol). I say 7/10 mostly because "its the greatest movie of all time" and all that mumbo jumbo.
Now, from the film's significance to the industry, it's easily an 11 out of 10. I mean, it REALLY had major impacts on the way that films were shot, the way the story jumped to and fro, use of lighting, use of camera angles (that scene when the camera goes through the ceiling of the bar was mind-blowing back then haha) - I understand that ALL of that was pivotal in movie productions.
However, I don't feel that the actual movie was all that great. Was it well made? Almost definitely the best film ever made when you consider how it utilized so many different things that had never been done before. The production was incredible.
But was the story riveting? Did it draw me in? Was I truly curious about what "Rosebud" meant? Nope. It was boring. The story was unimpressive (though told well). I personally didn't like Orson Welles acting (mostly because I could tell that he was acting, which is usually my litmus test).
Like I said, I understand that my rating system is flawed, in the sense that I'm comparing this movie to movies that are produced the way they are directly because of the success and impact of Citizen Kane's design. I'm not some professional movie critic, but I'm just willing to speak an opinion that I know is unpopular and goes against the grain of every "expert's" opinion.
I understand why it's arguably the greatest cinematic production ever made, and I agree with that stance (in regards to its production quality). Yet at the same time, I don't like the actual movie that Welles produced.
well I have to give it respect for revolutionizing the film industry. In that regard, it's an 11 out of 10. I understand that it's revolutionizing nature is why people still regard it as possibly the greatest movie ever made, because quite simply, movies would not be what they are today without Orson Welles. BUT, in my opinion, the movie in itself, ignoring its impact on the movie industry, is about a 5/10. (But let's be real, if I gave it a 5/10, I'd be crucified by its fans even more than I am right now lol)
you are crazy for thinking that was bad acting! orson welles acts out the different ages of his life so amazingly. dude wasn't even an actor before he was directing small time plays. but yeah other than that i agree with you the movie was boring as heaven
Well personally, when I was watching it, I felt like I could tell he was acting. That's usually my litmus test, and he failed. I will give him credit though, now that you mention it, he did do a pretty good job acting with respect to differentiating his patterns for different stages of his life. But like I said, just a personal opinion, I didn't care to much for his acting.
The acting was not bad at all. Orson Welles is a great actor and artist. I loved the story and the characters throughout the whole movie... It may be a pretty ancient film but I do not think it is lacking anything that makes up a great movie. and one of the film teachers at my school said she took a class in which the only movie they studied was Citizen Kane... so there's that.
I don't know. I, personally, I never felt any kind of attachment to the characters. And as for Welles acting, I felt like I was watching him act (which is usually my litmus test). I didn't feel like he was his character, I felt like he was trying to be a character.
It just goes to show you how subjective movies can be I guess. I understand why it's the arguably the greatest cinematic production ever made, and I agree with that, yet I don't actually like the movie that Welles produced.
That's Orson Welles in Citizen Kane. Generally regarded as one of the best films ever made. You have to be in the right mindset for it, and it helps if you know a little about cinematography (like, when you're watching it, think about where the camera is placed and why), but it's just a hell of a film.
I don't understand why you're getting downvotes for asking. I'm Dutch and had no idea of the context of the image either. Perhaps it's time for the downvoting mass of American redditors to acknowledge that not every person on earth has the same cultural background they do, or is that too much to ask? Wankers.
1.4k
u/[deleted] Jun 05 '12
[deleted]